Public Insurance Off The Table?

[USRufnex]

Try again Waterboy.  President Reagan, Cap Weinberger and George Schultz were the masters of detente`.

The rough patch our region went through in the 1980's had little to zilch to do with Reagan's economics or tax cuts.  There was a never-ending orgy of higher and higher interest rates from the Carter years which finally broke the back of the average homeowner and businessman, a borrowing binge based on oil approaching $40 a barrel, and some seriously greedy and dishonest bankers willing to roll the dice and bankroll speculative life-styles.

Reagan inherited a very full plate.   Can you honestly say with a straight face that America was worse off when Reagan left office than when he took it?  Where's your credibility when you spit on President Reagan, a man whom history has objectively shown was a very, very effective President?  Who won the Cold War, if it wasn't Reagan?

Hmmm.  Facts are pesky things.



http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

[guido911]

Facts sure are pesky:





http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

[USRufnex]

What does my dislike of Obama have to do with the fact that he is a liar? Nothing.

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
If you applied your blatant biases against Obama and used the same standard  against all other US Presidents...... all of them would be liars.

So, if you want to advance the argument that all politicians are liars, that's a point of view I can respect, even if I think it's just being used as a cynical ploy.

BTW, are you suggesting that Obama was truthful about accepting public finance?

He changed his mind.... because of people like ME.  Thousands... tens of thousands... hundreds of thousands of SMALL DONORS.

Republicans love stories like this because it advances the conservative argument that a good message is more necessary to raise money than relying on public financing.

You should ADMIRE Obama's decision to honor his donor base rather than shun them to keep a promise to take public financing.  I, as an Obama supporter, would have been angry at him if he shunned my donations in order to honor a public financing pledge.

He was truthful about lobbyists not being in his administration? Like your links (which in large part acknowledge the lie but try to minimize its significance) and your analysis. Its a matter of degree of the lie.

Per usual, you only apply this standard to Obama and not to Reagan.... that was my point, and it's still valid.

For your edification as to what Obama ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed to news prints' reflection/distortion, as to several of these issues raised in this thread:

LOBBYISTS:

Change of direction here... not easy... but the prez is trying to keep his promises...

Public Interest Groups Decry Obama's Strict Lobbying Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104074.html

Obama Freezes Pay, Toughens Ethics and Lobbying Rules
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azQJo_wu7f64

SIGNING STATEMENTS:
Obama has issued five signing statements to date, any idea the number Bush had issued at this point of his presidency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29

Applying a metric to signing statements

There is a controversy about how to count an executive's use of signing statements.[5] A "flat count" of total signing statements would include the rhetorical and political statements as well as the constitutional. This may give a misleading number when the intent is to count the number of constitutional challenges issued.

Another common metric is to count the "number of statutes" that are disputed by signing statements. This addresses a count of the constitutional issues but may be inherently inaccurate, due not only to ambiguity in the signing statements themselves but also to the method of determining which statutes are challenged.

A Congressional Research Service report issued on September 17, 2007,[6] uses as a metric the percentage of signing statements that contain "objections" to provisions of the bill being signed into law:

   President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton's conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.[6]

In March 2009, the New York Times cited a different metric, the number of sections within bills that were challenged in signing statements:

   "Mr. Bush ... broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio."[7]

PUBLIC FINANCE:

I don't think anything more needs to be said about this one.

No.  But considering your steadfast refusal to shuddup about it, I will continue to tell you that WE WON THE ELECTION.  The American people saw through your howling partisanship.  I am PROUD that Obama reversed himself on this issue due to his own success.... And I am PROUD to continue to support Obama and will be giving donations for his re-election, too.  And if I have no other reason to donate to Obama because I end up personally unhappy with his presidency... I will still donate just to SPITE jackbooted conservative lie spewers like yourself.

TRANSPARENCY:

Well, how's that working out:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_fiveday_rule_broken_aga.html

Pretty good, actually.  Compared to the last eight years.... very good.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/transparency/

As for your attack on Reagan, are you serious?  Reagan was a bad president on the economy?

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0165_Reagans_accomplishme.html

Noticed you left off of your list of Reagan failures the end of the cold war.

USRUF has once again brought a knife to a gun fight. You newbies out there, remember this thread if you are thinking about taking Nate and this guy seriously.

That's some serious hubris, arrogance and egotism.... the kind of attitude you accuse Obama of, BTW....

And for you newbies out there....
This is not a gun fight.
This is not a knife fight.

This is a PISSING MATCH.
And I've got a twelve-pack with Guido's name on it.

Go ahead.... MAKE MY DAY.  

[USRufnex]

Facts sure are pesky:

Yep.  And the sooner the Bush tax-cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, the better.  And Bush should have advanced a "war tax" to pay for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he was too big of a wus to do so........ let's just make future generations pay for our wars while making the George W Bush tax cuts permanent..... yeah, pull my finger.

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/

But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began. You might think someone in the Pentagon or the White House Office of Management and Budget could project costs for a year. Apparently not.

Why is a supplemental request the budget vehicle of choice? Because as an emergency measure, it doesn't count against the budget ceiling that Congress adopts to guide spending, and therefore isn't figured into government estimates of our annual budget deficit. So, for the last four years, these emergency spending bills have helped President Bush obscure the true cost of the war.

Wonder what that chart would look like if WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WERE INCLUDED....

http://costofwar.com/

[guido911]

Yep.  And the sooner the Bush tax-cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, the better.  And Bush should have advanced a "war tax" to pay for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he was too big of a wus to do so........ let's just make future generations pay for our wars while making the George W Bush tax cuts permanent..... yeah, pull my finger.

On war costs, Bush is master of disguise
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/

Wonder what that chart would look like if WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WERE INCLUDED....

http://costofwar.com/

It's Bush's fault. Yawn.

[waterboy]

Well done Ruf.

Guido, isn't Obama your commander-in-chief? Do you drop that label when you step out of the uniform and join the masses?

[nathanm]

It's Bush's fault. Yawn.

Weren't you the one blaming the housing crisis on Clinton?

[Red Arrow]

Hmmm.  Facts are pesky things.



http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

I really liked the inflation of the Carter years. It made it easier to pay things off as long as you were actively employed.  Fixed income folks had it a bit more difficult.  I was getting 15% on my CDs.  Of course they weren't worth much more by the time they matured.  I also liked the way the cuts in the military spending enabled us to have well trained personnel and top equipment to attempt a rescue of the hostages in Iran.

The dotcom bubble helped Clinton.  Towards the end of his administration, the economy was starting to tank.  I almost voted for Al to give him the credit for the economic downturn that followed. Al and Bill are lucky Bush won or they would have gotten credit for the downturn.  Can't speculate about the wars and what Al would have done.  I remember debating in High School about Goldwater vs. Johnson.  Johnson painted Goldwater as a warmonger with the implication that he (Johnson) would keep us from becoming more involved.   I seem to remember Johnson had at least a minor role in increasing the forces in Viet Nam and a few other places in SE Asia that weren't talked about much.  There were a few Americans that didn't like that war any more than the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Conan71]

Hey guys, what happened to public insurance being off the table?  Few ad hominems, red herrings, and strawmen and here we are.

Ruf, what's your take on the debt chart going to be in four years when President Obama smashes all records?  Bush's fault?  He's doing the same thing Reagan did, trying to spend the country out of a recession and unemployment.  I have yet to see one of the usual libs on here show me with any substantive evidence that America was worse off the day Reagan left office.  Nothing but anecdotal partisan hackery.

Keep in mind too that the increased spending under Reagan and Bush I happened wtih a Democrat Congress.  Clinton's reductions were with a Republican Congress.  Facts are a beotch.  Still have no idea w*t*f* happened with that GOP majority under Bush II...sheesh what a cluster fark.

BOT- It's revealed today we are $9 trill in the tank BEFORE rescuing healthcare.